Biden angrily criticized Hur for doing something Hur did NOT do.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6346938353112

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Nope.

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

So is he a senile old man who can't remember the correct date or circumstances of his sons death or is he a crooked politician who uses his sons death as a political crutch and changes its date and circumstances to whatever is politically convenient for him at the moment?


Which is it?

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Yes, Biden was angry about the report - but
if you listen to the clip, Biden clearly says
"How the hell dare he raise that" in error.

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Absolute utter BS. Do you never tire of lying?

Hur's report clearly shows sufficient facts to prosecute Biden for willful retention of classified documents. He had to explain why he wasn't going to recommend prosecuting Biden, despite the fact that Biden 100% broke the law. The fact that Biden allegedly cooperated more than Trump (mind you, he still didn't immediately turn over documents or call in the archives folks to retrieve the documents once his folks became aware of the problem) is like that difference between someone who is stopped for speeding who is nice to the cop that pulls them over and someone who is an ass the to cop -- both of them are still guilty of the underlying offense.

So, the decision not to prosecute Biden was based upon DOJ guidelines that require prosecutors to assess the likelihood that they could obtain a conviction. Hur concluded that it would be difficult (at some point in the future when Biden is no longer president) because of Biden's poor mental state.

So, you can either have a competent Biden who should be prosecuted, or an incompetent one who is getting off because his is NCM. Biden not knowing when his son died, when he was VP, etc., was the evidence that Hur relied upon to reach that conclusion.

Now, stop lying about this.

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

We've had the facts on this for a week. Have you been off planet or are you just lying?

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

---

What a complete load of crap!

He wasn't prosecuted was because Hur didn't have any evidence to prove his case. The lies about incompetence were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case. He only included them in his report to keep from being drawn and quartered by the townspeople for declining to pursue a case that had no merit.

Complete and total lie.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

---

What a complete load of crap!

He was prosecuted was because Hur didn't have any evidence to prove his case. The lies about incompetence were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case. He only included them in his report to keep from being drawn and quartered by the townspeople for declining to pursue a case that had no merit.

---

So you're saying he WASNT in possession of documents he was not legally allowed to have?

Because that's what is called "a stupid lie even by Democrat standards"


He was absolutely in possession of them in an illegal manner. The incompetence is the excuse they used to say why they won't prosecute him for it

Watermelon Man said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

---

What a complete load of crap!

He was prosecuted was because Hur didn't have any evidence to prove his case. The lies about incompetence were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case. He only included them in his report to keep from being drawn and quartered by the townspeople for declining to pursue a case that had no merit.

---

This thread is why there is no compromising with the left. You have 1984 as your handbook sitting next to your computer.

We have our answer. You are going to keep lying.

Biden is at the end stages of dementia. The sole reason he is still alive is due to him being one of the "elite" with access to numerous, expensive medical resources us plebes wouldn't ever rate to get. He was an incompetent, corrupt moron before he was afflicted with dementia.

Hur's report is just a "No ****, Sherlock!" moment in all of this.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

---

What a complete load of crap!

He was prosecuted was because Hur didn't have any evidence to prove his case. The lies about incompetence were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case. He only included them in his report to keep from being drawn and quartered by the townspeople for declining to pursue a case that had no merit.

---

So you're saying he WASNT in possession of documents he was not legally allowed to have?

Because that's what is called "a stupid lie even by Democrat standards"


He was absolutely in possession of them in an illegal manner. The incompetence is the excuse they used to say why they won't prosecute him for it

---

Biden absolutely did keep documents from even before he was VP.
What hasn't been shown is WHY he hid so many documents,
I think Hur was actually nice to Biden about that.
My guess is that Biden was covering up his corrupt deals.

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

The point was not Biden's son, it was that Biden could not remember the date of his son's death. Sorry if that offends, but if you can't remember the day or year for that matter, something is wrong with you.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

---

What a complete load of crap!

He was prosecuted was because Hur didn't have any evidence to prove his case. The lies about incompetence were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case. He only included them in his report to keep from being drawn and quartered by the townspeople for declining to pursue a case that had no merit.

---

When did KeithDB come back?

Watermelon Man said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

---

What a complete load of crap!

He was prosecuted was because Hur didn't have any evidence to prove his case. The lies about incompetence were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case. He only included them in his report to keep from being drawn and quartered by the townspeople for declining to pursue a case that had no merit.

---

Even CNN fact checked his lies. His previous statements contradicted where they were supposedly stored and how. All evidence should be presented. Your take is moronic.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

---

What a complete load of crap!

He was prosecuted was because Hur didn't have any evidence to prove his case. The lies about incompetence were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case. He only included them in his report to keep from being drawn and quartered by the townspeople for declining to pursue a case that had no merit.

---

You should stop digging. The revelation in the report about Biden's memory problems was completely relevant to the justification for choosing not to recommend prosecution.

Your gaslighting isn't going to work around here.

twk said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Absolute utter BS. Do you never tire of lying?

Hur's report clearly shows sufficient facts to prosecute Biden for willful retention of classified documents.
...

---

You like to believe the lies. And repeat them.

I know you believe anything your biased medial sources tell you, but did you know Hur's report actually concludes there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute, completely the opposite of what I bolded, above. Such as

Quote:

---

But the evidence falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Biden retained and disclosed these classified materials willfully.

---

Quote:

---

In addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute.

---

Please explain why Hur felt the need to bring Biden's dead son into the report when it concludes that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute and there are irrefutable explanations for Biden possessing the documents?

My mother passed when I was 10 years old. It was a life-changing moment for me. Suddenly, at ten, I was on my own in a way no child should ever have to be. I could not now, or any time in the past 50 years, tell you the date she died. I could look it up. I was there, so I obviously knew it when it happened. The date isn't important, what I lost is.

You know the old saying, never attribute to malice that which can adequately explained by stupidity? Well, there isn't any stupidity at play, here. It's all malice.

Regardless of my personal experiences, have you ever watched a deposition? For example, Don Jr.
(or was it Eric) for the business fraud case. Notice how many times he said he couldn't remember? Heck, although his job was reviewing and approving financial statements, but couldn't remember what GAAP meant?

Anyone being deposed is advised (or should be) to answer that you don't remember if you aren't 100% positive on the answer. They all do it. But, when Biden does it, it is proof of a feeble mind?

No, none of that stuff is factual and none belongs in Hur's report. The conclusions would have been exactly the same if he had left it out. It was a political hit, pure and simple.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

---

What a complete load of crap!

He was prosecuted was because Hur didn't have any evidence to prove his case. The lies about incompetence were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case. He only included them in his report to keep from being drawn and quartered by the townspeople for declining to pursue a case that had no merit.

---

Why did it have no merit?

Did he not take documents that were illegal to take when he was a Senator and a VP?

The case 100% had merit. He broke the f'ing law when he took those documents. That is cut and dry with zero wiggle room.

He wasn't prosecuted for these crimes because he's incompetent to stand trial.

Why are liars allowed to continually stick around hopping from sock to sock? The lies in his post are easily refutable with a quick Google search.

Watermelon Man said:

---

twk said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Absolute utter BS. Do you never tire of lying?

Hur's report clearly shows sufficient facts to prosecute Biden for willful retention of classified documents.
...

---

You like to believe the lies. And repeat them.

I know you believe anything your biased medial sources tell you, but did you know Hur's report actually concludes there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute, completely the opposite of what I bolded, above. Such as

Quote:

---

But the evidence falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Biden retained and disclosed these classified materials willfully.

---

Quote:

---

In addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute.

---

Please explain why Hur felt the need to bring Biden's dead son into the report when it concludes that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute and there are irrefutable explanations for Biden possessing the documents?

My mother passed when I was 10 years old. It was a life-changing moment for me. Suddenly, at ten, I was on my own in a way no child should ever have to be. I could not now, or any time in the past 50 years, tell you the date she died. I could look it up. I was there, so I obviously knew it when it happened. The date isn't important, what I lost is.

You know the old saying, never attribute to malice that which can adequately explained by stupidity? Well, there isn't any stupidity at play, here. It's all malice.

Regardless of my personal experiences, have you ever watched a deposition? For example, Don Jr.
(or was it Eric) for the business fraud case. Notice how many times he said he couldn't remember? Heck, although his job was reviewing and approving financial statements, but couldn't remember what GAAP meant?

Anyone being deposed is advised (or should be) to answer that you don't remember if you aren't 100% positive on the answer. They all do it. But, when Biden does it, it is proof of a feeble mind?

No, none of that stuff is factual and none belongs in Hur's report. The conclusions would have been exactly the same if he had left it out. It was a political hit, pure and simple.

---

Stop lying.

My mother died in Oct of 1981, when I was ten. I can tell you the date and the time my father came into my room where I was staying with my step-grandparents, bawling his eyes out (they were divorced) and that was 42 years ago.

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

You think a president who's making the gaffs that he is and clearly has dementia and can't remember when his son died isn't relevant? Hell he keeps saying Beau died in Iraq. He said that at least four or five times during his presidency and it's not true.

It has every business being in the report.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

---

What a complete load of crap!

He was prosecuted was because Hur didn't have any evidence to prove his case. The lies about incompetence were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case. He only included them in his report to keep from being drawn and quartered by the townspeople for declining to pursue a case that had no merit.

---

Take your gaslighting someplace else. Maybe across the Mexican border into Gaza where they might buy it.

No one in America with an IQ greater than Biden is buying it

Watermelon Man said:

---

[
You know the old saying, never attribute to malice that which can adequately explained by stupidity? Well, there isn't any stupidity at play, here. It's all malice.

...

No, none of that stuff is factual and none belongs in Hur's report. The conclusions would have been exactly the same if he had left it out. It was a political hit, pure and simple.

---

Biden is a piece of human refuse who swings his dead son around as a shield anytime anybody asks him a hard question. I'll never forget watching him bring up Beau as a response to a "why the hell was the Afghanistan withdrawal a disorganized disaster?" question. Had zero to do with what was asked, Joe was just trying to deflect using an emotional appeal anchored by some story about his dead kid. Now lo and behold we find out HE was the one who brought up Beau here too.

If Biden is going to bring up his dead kid as part of his defense, it belongs in the report. Period.

Garrelli 5000 said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

---

What a complete load of crap!

He was prosecuted was because Hur didn't have any evidence to prove his case. The lies about incompetence were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case. He only included them in his report to keep from being drawn and quartered by the townspeople for declining to pursue a case that had no merit.

---

Why did it have no merit?

Did he not take documents that were illegal to take when he was a Senator and a VP?

The case 100% had merit. He broke the f'ing law when he took those documents. That is cut and dry with zero wiggle room.

He wasn't prosecuted for these crimes because he's incompetent to stand trial.

Why are liars allowed to continually stick around hopping from sock to sock? The lies in his post are easily refutable with a quick Google search.

---

If it's so easy to refute, why don't you?

Because they aren't lies, they can be found in Hur's Report. Be careful, it's nearly 400 pages and what I linked to is an OCR rendering of jpeg images supplied by AP, so it likely contains mis-renderings (such as "Eiden" instead of "Biden").

But, perhaps to read the report for yourself and make up your own mind is too much work. Much easier to let others do that for you and just tell you what you are supposed to think. But, you might just miss some important parts (in addition it the declaration that there is no evidence to base a conviction on or that all evidence has irrefutable explanations that are not prosecutable).

Such as:

Quote:

---

Historically, after leaving office, many former presidents and vice presidents have knowingly taken home sensitive materials related to national security from their administrations without being charged with crimes. This historical record is important context for judging whether and why to charge a former vice president and former president, as Mr. Eiden would be when susceptible to prosecution-for similar actions taken by several of his predecessors.

With one exception, there is no record of the Department of Justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. The exception is former President Trump. It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.

Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Eiden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

---

What a complete load of crap!

He was prosecuted was because Hur didn't have any evidence to prove his case. The lies about incompetence were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case. He only included them in his report to keep from being drawn and quartered by the townspeople for declining to pursue a case that had no merit.

---

On the contrary, Hur specifically stated that he wouldn't recommend prosecution because Biden was incompetent. If he had no evidence, Hur wouldn't have neeed to make that statement, and he wouldn't have needed to include evidence of the senility. So Biden gets off because he can't remember, and Trump gets tried because he can remember.

Shagga said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

I am pretty sure Biden was angry that Hur decided to include that in his report (which was completely irrelevant to the report's subject). It had no business in that report.

---

Now this is some grade A goal tending. The whole reason he wasn't prosecuted was because he was too incompetent to stand trial. In an effort to evidence his incompetence, Hur noted that he couldn't even remember when his own son died. That's completely relevant to the defense of incompetence, whether or not it hurts your sensitive feelings.

---

What a complete load of crap!

He was prosecuted was because Hur didn't have any evidence to prove his case. The lies about incompetence were totally irrelevant to the facts of the case. He only included them in his report to keep from being drawn and quartered by the townspeople for declining to pursue a case that had no merit.

---

On the contrary, Hur specifically stated that he wouldn't recommend prosecution because Biden was incompetent. If he had no evidence, Hur wouldn't have neeed to make that statement, and he wouldn't have needed to include evidence of the senility. So Biden gets off because he can't remember, and Trump gets tried because he can remember.

---

I'm going to guess you have neither read this entire thread or Hur's Report. If you had read either, you would have found this (these are direct quotes from the report):

Quote:

---

But the evidence falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Biden retained and disclosed these classified materials willfully.

---

Quote:

---

In addition to this shortage of evidence, there are other innocent explanations for the documents that we cannot refute.

---

Please explain why Hur felt the need to bring Biden's dead son into the report when it concludes that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute and there are irrefutable explanations for Biden possessing the documents?

Again, the report plainly states they did not have enough evidence and irrefutable explanations exist for what was found.

That's the exact point - he can't prove willfullness because Biden doesn't have the capacity to demonstrate his intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime. You know, mens rea. You are trying to imply that there is no evidence. There is evidence and I agree with Hur that someone who is mentally infirm cannot be prosecuted. Again, thank you for proving my point.

Every person who holds a government security clearance (of any level) is made WELL aware of their duties/responsibilities. Upon leaving government service--the cleared person has to sign a document that outlines their ONGOING duties/responsibilities as regards continued possession and/or disclosure of classified information.

Title 18 US Code, Section 793 states that people who do what it appears Senator and Vice President Biden did "...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Additionally, Title 18 US Code, Section 1924 states:

"(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."

If Biden possessed classified documents at an unauthorized location (i.e. his garage or office closet at Princeton), it is pretty clear that he is guilty. Intent has no bearing on the issue. The End.

Second paragraph of the executive summary of this 400 page document states.... and I quote, "Our investigation uncovered that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency and when he was a private citizen."

One can continue to obfuscate around this but that is what was discovered.